Post subject: Why isn't Head to Head the FIRST tiebreaker (after record)?

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:22 pm

Master of the Order

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pmPosts: 6666Location: Chicago, IL

As has been brought up in detail lately, in DCI tie-breaking, record is considered first, then strength of schedule. There is a thread going on with ample discussion about what IS and SHOULD BE the third tie-breaker. I won't go into that issue - we can leave that for that thread.

What concerns me more, is that head to head is not even considered. AT ALL! I am still trying to wrap my head around that bit of ridiculousness. I am fairly well versed in tie-breaking procedures for many major pro sports. I'm talking about end of season for play-off purposes, which is more applicable in this correlation. To my knowledge, head-to-head is ALWAYS considered more relevant than strength of schedule. As it should be in my opinion.

For example

NFL tiebreakers go as following:

TimmerB123 wrote:

1. Head-to-head 2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division. 3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common opponents. 4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference. 5. Strength of victory. 6. Strength of schedule.

Strength of schedule is 6th. SIXTH!!! Granted 2 and 4 are not applicable to minis, but that still puts it 4th, behind head to head, common opponents and strength of victory (AKA MoV as proposed in Dean's thread). I also like that common opponents is considered before strength of schedule.

How about Pro Baseball?

It's almost purely head to head here

TimmerB123 wrote:

If there is a tie for any of the divisions or the wild card, there is a one-game playoff the day after the season to determine the team that advances.

(In other words - they play HEAD TO HEAD)

TimmerB123 wrote:

If there is a tie for a division and the losing team is assured of winning the wild card, there is no one-game playoff and the team that won the season series between the teams is named the division champion.

(Once again, it comes down to HEAD TO HEAD)

And finally the NBA?

TimmerB123 wrote:

1. Results of games against each other.

2. Better winning percentage within own division (only if tied teams are in same division).

3. Better winning percentage against teams in own conference.

4. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in own conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).

5. Better winning percentage against playoff opponents in opposite conference (including teams that finished the regular season tied for a playoff position).

6. Better point differential between offense and defense.

Once again, Head to head matters most. And furthermore - they are more concerned about how you did versus the good teams, not bad teams.

Head to head should matter so much more than strength of schedule. Every pro sport has figured it out - why can't Star Wars Miniatures? It makes much more sense whatever direction you look at it to consider head to head. There are so many factors out of your control with strength of schedule, it's a bit unfair to have that hold more weight that head to head. Should you be punished because someone you beat dropped? No! Should you be punished because you had the bad luck of getting paired with weaker opponents? No! Should you be held accountable because you lost to someone head to head? YES!

"I placed third because I lost to the guy who got second" makes much more sense than, "I placed third even though I beat the guy who got second and we had the same record, but I had a weaker strength of schedule."

Head to head, DCI, Head to head.

Last edited by TimmerB123 on Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:27 pm

Droid Army Commander

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:37 pmPosts: 1279

Well what happens in this situation:

Guy #1 is ranked Top 10Guy #2 is mid-ranked Guy #3 is playing first EventGuy #4 is playing first Event

Round #1Guy # 3 beats #4Guy #2 beats #1

Round #2Guy #3 beats #2Guy #1 beats #4

Round #3Guy #1 beats #3Guy #2 beats #4

Guys #1, 2, and 3 end up all 2-1.

Guy #1 beat #3 and #4Guy #2 beat #1 and #4Guy #3 beat #2 and #4

IMO Guy #2 should PROBABLY be the winner as he beat Guy #1. But then again, Guy #3 beat him. Guy #1 beat guy #3 though and is Top 10 but seeing as he's Top and LOST it really should be up to #2 and #3 and out of that #3 won.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:52 pm

Master of the Order

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pmPosts: 8394

Swiss is the dumbest recording format for tournament play ever conceived. Sadly, this is not the first time this has been brought up. However, much like those other occurrences, I expect about the same result from this gripe as from every other time it has been mentioned.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:02 pm

Master of the Order

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pmPosts: 6666Location: Chicago, IL

Grand Moff Boris wrote:

Swiss is the dumbest recording format for tournament play ever conceived. Sadly, this is not the first time this has been brought up. However, much like those other occurrences, I expect about the same result from this gripe as from every other time it has been mentioned.

I agree, Boris, and I don't like Swiss either.

To give it it's due - Swiss bracketing is the quickest and most efficient way to get to one winner. One undefeated. My issue is never how they come up with first place, but rather how they determine 2nd and lower.

Even within the Swiss bracketing system - it could have better tie-breakers. That is the issue at hand.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:04 pm

Master of the Order

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pmPosts: 6666Location: Chicago, IL

Fool wrote:

Well what happens in this situation:

Guy #1 is ranked Top 10Guy #2 is mid-ranked Guy #3 is playing first EventGuy #4 is playing first Event

Round #1Guy # 3 beats #4Guy #2 beats #1

Round #2Guy #3 beats #2Guy #1 beats #4

Round #3Guy #1 beats #3Guy #2 beats #4

Guys #1, 2, and 3 end up all 2-1.

Guy #1 beat #3 and #4Guy #2 beat #1 and #4Guy #3 beat #2 and #4

IMO Guy #2 should PROBABLY be the winner as he beat Guy #1. But then again, Guy #3 beat him. Guy #1 beat guy #3 though and is Top 10 but seeing as he's Top and LOST it really should be up to #2 and #3 and out of that #3 won.

Instead the finals were

#1#2#3 (Hence the order I chose)

TO me = retarded.

I don't understand why round 3 happened. With 4 people there should only be 2 rounds in DCI. After round 2 there was a clear winner.

That being said - I agree, this is ridiculous. In round robin situations (where 3 players all beat one and lost to one) - head to head (and in this case) strength of schedule are tied. So it goes to the next tie-breaker, which apparently was who signed up first. In this scenario this would be the case whether head to head was considered or not. This is where Margin of Victory would have been useful. But like I said - I'll leave those tie-breaker discussions to the other thread. This thread is about head to head. And this scenario has no bearing on it one way or another.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:27 pm

Warmaster

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:55 amPosts: 691

Head-to-Head is an effective way to do it, but becomes a problem if 3 people have identical records and only two of them have gone head to head.

To be honest, after looking at how the "SOS" part factors in, I see that as being terribly flawed as well. At least in the NCAA, it's based on rank, not record. You might face an opponent who is 0-2, but just happens to be the top ranked player in the world and suffered from terrible dice and a couple disintegrations in their first two games. If you win over them, that win is treated as being worth less than a victory over a first-timer running Darth Bane and some fodder who was 1-1?

Seems like a system that needs looking into. In a random dice game, SOS seems a silly thing to try and quantify.

That's why +/- (MOV) is good because it puts perspective on wins vs SOS situations. You might come out +10 vs a good opponent who ends up 2-2, but +100 vs an opponent who was 3-1.

Simply having Record, Head-to-Head and +/- (MOV) would work well enough. IMO.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:34 pm

Name Calling Internet Bully

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pmPosts: 6172Location: Gurnee, IL

Strength of Schedule reflects the strength of your opponents the entire day. Head to Head only reflects one particular game. I do not at all buy the logic that it should ever be the 2nd tie breaker. Swiss is not only good at determing an undefeated, but it also is generally good at determining rank. Sure, there will be quirks in any format, but honestly, there isn't a much better system. In Swiss, the problem of using Head to Head is when you have 3 way ties and only two players played each other. It happens in many cases. I much prefer SoS over head to head as the second tie breaker.

You used a bunch of sports analogies, so I will use another. College Football. Head to head play only factors into the voting, and even then, it's really rare as other factors generally influence voting than this. In particular, two teams with one loss each, one being to the other team, and the other team losing to a terrible 2-9 team, the team that lost the "tougher" game usually gets the nod, even though they loss in head to head play. And generally, it's the right call as the better team is the one getting the nod.

For example Texas Tech, Texas and Oklahoma last year. The best team of the three, was Oklahoma. But Texas beat them. What influenced the voting (which determined the national championship team) was the way those games were won.

Let's look at it from a Swiss perspective as well. Let's say, one player beats the other in round one, maybe even due to a hate type match up for that player. That player drops down, then goes on a 5-0 run. After going 1-1, they get paired up, and beat a 2-0 player. This puts them at the top of the 1 loss tables for the next round, and they continue to win, odds are getting paired up again at a later time. So chances are, they end up beating a 5-0 player in the last round. Now, the other guy, loses in round 3, and starts getting the easy schedule (which tends to happen when you lose in round 3 of Swiss) for the rest of the tournament. He goes on to finish 5-1 as well, but played no one close to the guy he beat. Does he deserve to place ahead of the guy who played 4 good opponents, when he maybe only played 2, just because in one game he beat him? You might argue yes, I will always argue no.

I have absolutely no problem with finishing behind someone who beat me because Swiss is not a single elimination tournament. It is more like a round robin event where solid play throughout the day is rewarded, not just getting lucky in one game. Just as you argued the occasional drop knocking you down a notch, head to head does not solve the oddities, it merely opens up other ones.

Bill's correct on this one. SoS factors in all of the games, not just one and should remain the 2nd tie breaking. It takes in the whole picture of the tournament and looks at the winning percentage based off who you played. Head to Head should definitely be looked afterwards though IMO. If the two of you were tied with the same SoS and you just beat him in the last match, then the tie should go to you and not to your opponent simply because of last name or entry into the system.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:06 pm

Name Calling Internet Bully

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pmPosts: 6172Location: Gurnee, IL

Lackey wrote:

Bill's correct on this one. SoS factors in all of the games, not just one and should remain the 2nd tie breaking. It takes in the whole picture of the tournament and looks at the winning percentage based off who you played. Head to Head should definitely be looked afterwards though IMO. If the two of you were tied with the same SoS and you just beat him in the last match, then the tie should go to you and not to your opponent simply because of last name or entry into the system.

exactly, which is why I recommend head to head being the third tie breaker. Then something else for 4th in the cases where you did not play one another (which will be fairly often in a big tournament so something like Dean's suggestion is a good idea, but I would probably just rather use something that the system can track without additional reporting, like Opponent's opponent's or something like that).

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Master of the Order

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pmPosts: 6666Location: Chicago, IL

Record is, as it should be, the first factor.

So "playing well all day" is already factored in with record. Pure and simple. We are talking about tie-breakers. 2 people with the same record that played each other should have that tie broken based on the head to head match. Period.

Sorry, but if I happened to lose in the final round to someone who took the easy path, like with a bye, while I have to fight for my spot, I want my strength of schedule to out way what could have been a cheap win (like the big D). The reason SoS is used after record is to account for how hard it was for you to get where you are, which is exactly how it should be. Now I have no problems whatsoever afterwards using Head to Head to break any additional ties.

For the record, this almost never happens on the top of the standing. It takes a number of factors for a tournament to end without a clear winner and even should that happen, the TO has the right to hold a play-off. The tie breakers tend to be needed towards the bottom of the standings where a number of people ended with the same record and even then SoS is better since those tied may not have even played against each other.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:25 am

Master of the Order

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pmPosts: 8394

billiv15 wrote:

Grand Moff Boris wrote:

billiv15 wrote:

Grand Moff Boris wrote:

Biil if I beat you in a tournament game you should not finish the event higher than me. We could argue about this all day, but it doesn't change the fact that that is a ridiculous notion.

That isn't the only factor involved. We did not play just one game. So your notion is flawed to begin with.

Let me revise my statement because I think I confused you.

If we have the same record at the end of the tournament and I beat you (or vice-versa) I should not finish lower than you (or vice-versa).

I did not misunderstand. I believe playing a better over all field all day, hence a stronger SoS should be rewarded over winning one game.

How can you be sure you had a better overall field? Maybe I played people who were entered in the system before you, or maybe you had players that got byes because there was an odd number of players.

It's not a straight-up "who played the toughest opponents" concept as you seem to be suggesting here.

I've had issues with Swiss for a long time, going back more than 10 years. I don't get any say in who I get paired against, and neither does anyone else in the tournament. Penalizing a player for who the computer paired them against to the point that a person they beat ranks higher than them is not a fair method. Swiss is flawed on multiple levels and always has been, and in all likelihood will continue to be.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the FIRST tiebreaker (after record)?

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:48 am

Sith Apprentice

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:07 pmPosts: 227Location: Indiana

Not to speak out of turn, and being a relative noob to the competitive arena. I think the total number of points scored during the tournament, if it isn't already, should factor in the discision. This is one reason gambit is so important during (tourney) gameplay. Gambit is a free 5 points that many do not take advantage of.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:43 am

Name Calling Internet Bully

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pmPosts: 6172Location: Gurnee, IL

Grand Moff Boris wrote:

It's not a straight-up "who played the toughest opponents" concept as you seem to be suggesting here.

I've had issues with Swiss for a long time, going back more than 10 years. I don't get any say in who I get paired against, and neither does anyone else in the tournament. Penalizing a player for who the computer paired them against to the point that a person they beat ranks higher than them is not a fair method. Swiss is flawed on multiple levels and always has been, and in all likelihood will continue to be.

Well of course it's not, but it's still pretty darn good. Let's make a comparison.

Looking at Gencon. Player A beat player B, both end at 5-2, along with 7 other people at 5-2 who did not play one another. Assuming the normal that 2 make the top 8. Player A has a lower SoS and Player B has the best SoS of all the 5-2s because his two losses were to player A and the lone 7-0 player. Since head to head doesn't break the tie, player B gets ranked 8th with the top SoS of the 5-2s, and since player A, whose SoS is lower than all the other 5-2s, happened to beat player A (his top ranked opponent), he gets ranked 7th because of head to head being 2nd. How on earth is that somehow more fair?

And as too the garbage that you have "no control" that is untrue. You have no control in the first round, but after that Swiss is totally in your control. It is only when you lose that you move down, otherwise, no matter who you played, you continue to rise over the tables.

What you call a "flaw" I call a strength. We are just going to have to agree to disagree that one system is more "fair" than another. I believe SoS in swiss is much more important than head to head match ups, since you don't play the same set of opponents, and you do not. That's cool, but I think in big tournaments, it generally works pretty well (and I don't need to hear your issues of abuse back from the Magic days either). Pointing out flaws that I am already aware of does not tell me that head to head play is superior, when you are not playing common opponents.

The competitions that use head to head as a tie breaker, have common opponents. That's part of its deal. SoS isn't as strong of an indicator if you have the same opponents. One of the primary issues in Baseball today, is the question of if interleague play is fair to all teams. Think for example of two teams from different divisions who are competing with each other for the wild card. Interleague play has one team playing the best division in baseball, and the other played the weakest.

The NFL requires each division to play the same set of opponents, so that determining a true division winner, is fair. Because SoS will be equal then (more or less), head to head becomes the first tie breaker, which of course, generally fails because they play each other twice and often split those games.

Anyways, my point is simple. I don't believe head to head has significant strength over SoS, in fact I believe it's less predictive of who did better that day. That doesn't mean I am ignorant of the flaws that SoS has. I just think it's better at predicting in Swiss play, who had the better day overall than a straight head to head.

However, I recommended and fully support using head to head as the 3rd tie breaker. In the case where two guys ended with the same record, and the same SoS, then if one guy beat the other, I am all for it. That is as far as I am willing to go with it.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:10 am

Master of the Order

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pmPosts: 8394

billiv15 wrote:

Well of course it's not, but it's still pretty darn good. Let's make a comparison.

Looking at Gencon. Player A beat player B, both end at 5-2, along with 7 other people at 5-2 who did not play one another. Assuming the normal that 2 make the top 8. Player A has a lower SoS and Player B has the best SoS of all the 5-2s because his two losses were to player A and the lone 7-0 player. Since head to head doesn't break the tie, player B gets ranked 8th with the top SoS of the 5-2s, and since player A, whose SoS is lower than all the other 5-2s, happened to beat player A (his top ranked opponent), he gets ranked 7th because of head to head being 2nd. How on earth is that somehow more fair?

Well I can agree that for a larger event like the GenCon main tournament, yeah, the argument against Swiss breaks down. But Swiss is used for all things DCI, and not every tournament is a 70-100 person event. It's at the local levels, where there are typically 8-20 people (regardless of what game we are talking about) where so many of the problems with the program become apparent.

Quote:

And as too the garbage that you have "no control" that is untrue. You have no control in the first round, but after that Swiss is totally in your control. It is only when you lose that you move down, otherwise, no matter who you played, you continue to rise over the tables.

It's not "garbage." I have no control over whom I play. Yes I can win or lose and face people with like records most of the time, but I still don't get to choose which ones I face at my rank level. And it is not "when you lose you move down," either. You really need to learn more about the system. Depending on how many players there are, a player can be paired down, meaning one with a higher rank could face one with a lower rank if there aren't enough people at the higher ranked player's level. It's all completely random, within that structure I should add.

Quote:

What you call a "flaw" I call a strength. We are just going to have to agree to disagree that one system is more "fair" than another. I believe SoS in swiss is much more important than head to head match ups, since you don't play the same set of opponents, and you do not. That's cool, but I think in big tournaments, it generally works pretty well (and I don't need to hear your issues of abuse back from the Magic days either). Pointing out flaws that I am already aware of does not tell me that head to head play is superior, when you are not playing common opponents.

I don't really know what my "Magic days" has to do with this. I think we are looking at this from two different angles (big tournament that happens one day out of 365 vs. the weekly tournament at the LGS).

Quote:

However, I recommended and fully support using head to head as the 3rd tie breaker. In the case where two guys ended with the same record, and the same SoS, then if one guy beat the other, I am all for it. That is as far as I am willing to go with it.

Well finally something we can agree on, or close enough.

EDIT: The thing that you seem to be forgetting or perhaps overlooking is that SoS is not determined in a vacuum. It's not just about who I faced or how my opponents performed. It takes into account who they played, whether or not they got a bye, and then it looks at who my opponents' opponents' records, and factors all of that in. SoS is more accurately labeled "field of play" because it evaluates every single player's role in the tournament to determine each person's score. So when I said I have no control over that, that was correct. Beyond my own ability to win or lose each game, which in the grand scheme of Swiss is fairly insignificant when it comes time to rank, the system is random and you have to have a fairly large event for it to make sense. It's just not a good program for LGS tournaments that draw less than 20 people most weeks.

Post subject: Re: Why isn't Head to Head the second tie-breaker in DCI!?!

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:24 am

Master of the Order

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:01 pmPosts: 6666Location: Chicago, IL

billiv15 wrote:

Looking at Gencon. Player A beat player B, both end at 5-2, along with 7 other people at 5-2 who did not play one another. Assuming the normal that 2 make the top 8. Player A has a lower SoS and Player B has the best SoS of all the 5-2s because his two losses were to player A and the lone 7-0 player. Since head to head doesn't break the tie, player B gets ranked 8th with the top SoS of the 5-2s, and since player A, whose SoS is lower than all the other 5-2s, happened to beat player A (his top ranked opponent), he gets ranked 7th because of head to head being 2nd. How on earth is that somehow more fair?

Yes OK - let's ACTUALLY look at GenCon. 2 Years ago (As you know I was in a wedding last year). I ended 5-2. Lost to two 6-1s (1st and 3rd in the final standings). I beat one of the finalsists (5-2), and another 5-2 finisher. So the Finalist lost to me (5-2) and someone else (there was no 7-0 that year), so you know right there that he must have lost to opponents with overall worse records. He didn't beat any other finalists in the prelim rounds. Yet he ended with a higher SoS, and went to the finals, and I ended 10th. How? Well - most likely my drops. I thought the ranking system was quite flawed before this, but the was quite the example to prove it. This is why SoS is flawed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum